[Thrall]

In addition to the other answers, don't forget that in the situation described, if you remove the 'thousands of unauthorized copies', you still haven't sold any copies.

In terms of semantics: "Say I write a book but nobody purchases a copy."

In more meaningful terms: If people do not value your book highly enough to pay you for it, then without the thousands of unauthorized copies, you are an unknown writer languishing in obscurity. With the copies, you have at least started to publicise your name and your message.

[leephillips]

"If people do not value your book highly enough to pay you for it"

But the crux of the matter is that people will, in overwhelming numbers, choose not to pay if they are not compelled to pay, even if they value the content. If you eliminate the thousands of unauthorized copies, it is not true that I still haven't sold any copies. I would perhaps have several hundred sales. I might prefer the several thousand free downloads, but I should have that choice.

Look at the "Pioneer One" example brought up in another comment. Four million downloads and a mere $20,000 raised. People feel entitled to free stuff; no matter how great they think it is, if they can get away with letting others pay, they will. All the "fans", and they refused to kick in one dollar for the content that they value so highly.

[andrewcooke]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_One says they have raised $100,000. the $20,000 number was for a specific target.

more generally, your argument seems to hinge on the idea that they would make more money if they could. but it's not clear to me that is the case.

[res0nat0r]

I think the poster boys for pay what you want, Radiohead and NIN, don't think this model is a good idea anymore because of exactly what is mentioned above: people want too much free stuff if they can get it and that isn't sustainable.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/4/4054634/musics-pay-what-you...

[leephillips]

You're right about the $100,000: I skimmed too quickly. So, 29 cents per download for the ones we know about; the actual number of downloads is probably much greater, as pointed out in the article. And, still not nearly enough to provide livelihoods for the people involved in the project, so my point remains.

"your argument seems to hinge on the idea that they would make more money if they could."

My argument is just that they absolutely need to make much more money if they are to make a living making TV shows, as other people do, and that voluntary donations aren't cutting it, because people don't pay when they are not compelled to. So this case, which was adduced as a counterexample, helps to prove my point.